Introduction
The Electoral College, established by the framers of the U.S. Constitution in 1787, was designed as a mechanism to indirectly elect the President of the United States. This system emerged from a belief among the Constitutional Convention delegates that the general populace lacked sufficient information to make an informed decision about presidential candidates. Instead, electors chosen by state legislatures were tasked with casting votes on behalf of their states. However, over two centuries later, this system has faced increasing scrutiny for its perceived inequities and misalignment with democratic principles. This essay examines the Electoral College’s flaws, arguing that it undermines political equality, creates unfair outcomes in the absence of a majority winner, and disproportionately disadvantages third-party and independent candidates. Through a critical evaluation of historical evidence and scholarly perspectives, this paper contends that the Electoral College should be abolished in favour of a more direct and equitable system of presidential election.
The Electoral College and Political Inequality
One of the most significant criticisms of the Electoral College is that it violates the principle of political equality by disproportionately weighting votes based on geographic location. The system’s allocation of electoral votes—based on a state’s total congressional representation rather than population alone—means that smaller states have a greater per capita influence in presidential elections. For instance, Wyoming, with a population of roughly 580,000, has three electoral votes, while California, with nearly 40 million residents, has 55. This translates to one electoral vote per 193,000 people in Wyoming, compared to one per 727,000 in California, effectively amplifying the voting power of individuals in smaller states (Edwards, 2011).
This disparity undermines the democratic ideal of “one person, one vote,” as it prioritizes the voices of some citizens over others purely based on where they reside. Furthermore, as Edwards (2011) argues, the winner-takes-all approach adopted by most states exacerbates this issue by disregarding the diversity of political opinion within a state. For example, a candidate who wins 51% of a state’s popular vote receives all of its electoral votes, rendering the remaining 49% of votes effectively meaningless. This structural bias not only distorts the will of the people but also discourages voter turnout in states where one party consistently dominates, as individuals may feel their vote carries little weight. Therefore, the Electoral College’s inherent inequities call into question its relevance in a modern democracy that values equal representation.
Unfair Outcomes in the Absence of a Majority Winner
Another critical flaw in the Electoral College is its potential to produce inconclusive or undemocratic outcomes when no candidate secures a majority of electoral votes. In such scenarios, the decision is deferred to the House of Representatives, where each state delegation casts a single vote, regardless of population size. This process, as Plumer (2012) highlights, can lead to profoundly unequal representation, as a state like Wyoming, with one representative, holds the same voting power as California, with over fifty. Such a system risks distorting the democratic process by prioritizing political strategy over popular will, as the outcome in Congress may hinge on partisan alliances rather than the electorate’s preference.
Historically, this contingency process has been invoked, most notably in the election of 1824, when neither John Quincy Adams nor Andrew Jackson secured an electoral majority. The House ultimately selected Adams, despite Jackson having won the popular vote, leading to widespread accusations of a “corrupt bargain” (Remini, 1981). This episode illustrates how the Electoral College’s fallback mechanism can undermine public trust in the electoral process by sidelining the expressed will of the majority. While such scenarios are rare, the mere possibility highlights the system’s susceptibility to producing outcomes that do not reflect democratic intent, further justifying calls for reform or abolition.
Disadvantage to Third-Party and Independent Candidates
The Electoral College also poses a significant barrier to third-party and independent candidates, thereby limiting political diversity and voter choice. The winner-takes-all system in most states discourages support for non-major-party candidates, as voters often fear “wasting” their vote on a candidate unlikely to secure a state’s entire slate of electoral votes (Edwards, 2011). This structural disincentive perpetuates a two-party duopoly, stifling alternative voices that might otherwise enrich political discourse. For instance, in the 1992 election, independent candidate Ross Perot garnered nearly 19% of the popular vote but failed to win a single electoral vote, demonstrating how the system marginalizes non-traditional candidates (Leip, 2020).
Moreover, the Electoral College focuses campaign efforts on a handful of competitive “swing states,” further sidelining third-party candidates who may lack the resources to compete in these key areas. This dynamic entrenches the dominance of the Democratic and Republican parties, as candidates from smaller parties struggle to gain visibility or traction under a system that rewards concentrated regional support over broad national appeal. By suppressing political diversity, the Electoral College arguably undermines the pluralistic nature of representative government, prompting renewed calls for a system—such as a national popular vote—that would level the playing field for all candidates.
Historical Discrepancies Between Popular and Electoral Votes
Perhaps the most glaring evidence of the Electoral College’s shortcomings lies in its history of producing presidents who lost the popular vote. This has occurred on several occasions, including the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, and most recently, 2000, when George W. Bush defeated Al Gore despite Gore receiving over half a million more popular votes nationwide (Leip, 2020). Similarly, in 2016, Donald Trump secured the presidency despite Hillary Clinton winning nearly 2.9 million more popular votes (Leip, 2020). Such outcomes not only defy the intuitive expectation that the candidate with the most votes should win but also erode public confidence in the fairness of the electoral process.
These discrepancies typically arise from the uneven distribution of electoral votes and the winner-takes-all rule, which can amplify small margins of victory in key states into decisive electoral outcomes. Indeed, as critics argue, a system that allows a candidate to assume the presidency without a popular mandate contradicts the foundational principle of democratic governance (Plumer, 2012). Abolishing the Electoral College in favour of a direct popular vote would arguably prevent such anomalies, ensuring that the candidate with the broadest national support assumes office.
Counterarguments and Rebuttals
Proponents of the Electoral College often argue that it protects the interests of smaller states and ensures a geographically balanced campaign process. Without the system, they contend, candidates might focus exclusively on densely populated urban areas, ignoring rural and less populous regions (Bugh, 2016). While this concern holds some merit, it overlooks the current reality, where campaigns already concentrate on a narrow set of battleground states, often neglecting both large and small states deemed non-competitive. Moreover, the principle of political equality should take precedence over regional considerations; a voter in a rural state should not wield disproportionate influence simply to counterbalance urban populations (Edwards, 2011). Thus, while the intent to safeguard federalism is understandable, it does not outweigh the democratic deficits perpetuated by the Electoral College.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Electoral College represents an outdated and flawed system that fails to align with the democratic principles of political equality and fair representation. By disproportionately empowering voters in smaller states, producing undemocratic outcomes in the absence of a majority, marginalizing third-party candidates, and occasionally contradicting the popular vote, the system undermines the very ideals it was designed to uphold. While defenders argue that it preserves the interests of smaller states, this benefit comes at the expense of broader fairness and voter confidence. Transitioning to a national popular vote would not only rectify these issues but also strengthen the legitimacy of presidential elections by ensuring that every vote counts equally, regardless of geography. As the United States continues to evolve as a democracy, abolishing the Electoral College remains a necessary step toward a more equitable and representative electoral process.
References
- Bugh, G. E. (2016) Electoral College Reform: Challenges and Possibilities. Routledge.
- Edwards, G. C. (2011) Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America. Yale University Press.
- Leip, D. (2020) Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. uselectionatlas.org.
- Plumer, B. (2012) The Indefensible Electoral College: Why Even the Best-Laid Defenses of the System Are Wrong. Slate Magazine.
- Remini, R. V. (1981) Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Freedom, 1822-1832. Harper & Row.
